While we don't verify specific claims because reviewers' opinions are their own, we may label reviews as "Verified" when we can confirm a business interaction took place. Read more
To protect platform integrity, every review on our platform—verified or not—is screened by our 24/7 automated software. This technology is designed to identify and remove content that breaches our guidelines, including reviews that are not based on a genuine experience. We recognise we may not catch everything, and you can flag anything you think we may have missed. Read more
1.4
283 reviews
No history of asking for reviews
This company hasn't invited their customers, so reviews may not be representative
How this company uses Trustpilot
See how their reviews and ratings are sourced, scored, and moderated.
In many areas, Wikipedia does not provide scientific, statistical, or fact-based information, but rather publishes the opinions of specific individuals or groups.
It does not replace scientific research, nor does it serve the pursuit of truth.
Because it presents itself as a knowledge encyclopedia, Wikipedia is highly questionable.
The distortion of reality that occurs daily worldwide as a result is dangerous!
Wikipedia used to be my go-to source for information. I was a regular financial supporter for many years. But they have become so relentlessly left-wing that I no longer provide any financial support.
Like many times before, on many other venues, I posted an anecdote regarding the Lone Ranger. Circling back, this morning, I was advised, in a notification from Europe, official transcripts, in the courtroom of an eventual United States Congressman, were not considered adequate citation.
I have encountered this same type of tacitly, encouraged despotism trying to expand offerings regarding my home town.
Apparently, this social media incarnation of a typical Hollywood western is fully endorsed by Wikipedia.
The Sheriff and his deputies ravage the town, as the authorities turn a blind eye.
The disturbing thing about Wikipedia isn't that it is obviously bias and the people who have the power to block and change are pushing an agenda...
...but rather, if you go into the Talk pages and read the conversations about edits, they are VERY proud of pushing false information and avoiding neutrality.
But then, one of the founders of Wikipedia even came out and said that it is pushing an agenda and no longer working as a source of information.
pathetic website stole my info word for word
I mean, most info is real but i heard my friend say u can but whatever u want on there.
So happy I can rely on Wikipedia every day.
May be the editor interface could be improved and brought up to date.
Wikipedia.
Excellent source for researching anything online.
I found their historical sources to be fairly accurate, fair and impartial.
Real time editing all the time, complete with all their checkable verifiable sources listed.
Not bad really, i use them all the time.
I never believed how Wikipedia could help me on almost daily matters. I hope German edition will also increase its size and # of pages (but after all, it's all abt us...)
Anyone can write a Trustpilot review. People who write reviews have ownership to edit or delete them at any time, and they’ll be displayed as long as an account is active.
We use dedicated people and clever technology to safeguard our platform. Find out how we combat fake reviews.
Learn about Trustpilot’s review process.
Here are 8 tips for writing great reviews.
Verification can help ensure real people are writing the reviews you read on Trustpilot.
Offering incentives for reviews or asking for them selectively can bias the TrustScore, which goes against our guidelines.
